Rother Valley Railway

Difficult to say. Their website details have been taken down, and the site at Broad Oak is a few miles East of Salehurst. I only know the Hoads as arable farmers, but that's not to say there isn't any connection. Either way, I don't think there is any relevance to the matter in hand.
I am disappointed to see that Sally Ann Hart has continued along the lines of Amber Rudd's negativity. At least Huw Merriman has for once put his head above the political parapet, and come out in favour of the project. However, ultimately, it is the judgement of Grant Shapps which will carry the day, and thus far, the new government has at least displayed a noticeably pro-rail stance.

 

The Website for the Public Inquiry http://rother-valley.gateleyhamer-pi.com/ has two new documents. The first is a submission from RVR to the ORR concerning the proposed level crossings. The second is ORR's response - it seems that they have accepted RVR's case that the level crossings meet the exceptional circumstances test. This is good news. We await the Public Inquiry with interest.

 

The Public Inquary will be interesting to see what the real argument of the Anti RVR protest is, and given the nature of the Facebook campaign how much will be deemed to not be admissible ?

 

For those [like me ;-] who had a hard time finding this, it is here.

Interestingly, although they were good with the road level crossings, they were less so with the footpaths, bridle-path, cattle crossings, etc. Still, those should be easier to handle with out of grade solutions than the road would, and the ORR response sounds optimistic that those crossings can be worked to their satisfaction.

Noel

 

I had a quick skim through this and my general impression is that - through gritted teeth - the ORR were effectively forced to admit that the road crossing risks can be made so minimal as to be acceptable.

To me, it's obvious that a heritage railway *can* work a major road crossing in a way that would be as near as 'totally safe' as is possible. Without commenting on the particular operational methods that the RVR might be proposing, obviously on a heritage railway which can afford a full-barrier crossing it is entirely practical (for example) for every train to stop just short of the crossing, the driver to confirm that the crossing is closed and clear and then proceed at walking pace across the crossing.
At that point it becomes really a traffic management (rather than safety) issue, as to whether it's acceptable for the road to be closed for that amount of time.

 

There's a Pelican crossing just up the road.
Anyone can close it as often as they like
No one complains about that.

 

True, i would say that is more of an accident black spot than any level crossing will be, but I doubt the protesters will agree, they will be imaging all kinds of mayhem, traffic stacked up for miles, having some hairy biker leering at them, whilst his side kick cooks up a feast t on their overheating bonnet, whilst the Windsor chapter of the Hella Angels, ring up their stock brokers, whilst photographing 14 Charlwelton and the vintage train as it rumbles over in front of them.

 

I have just read the bits about user worked crossings with utter disbelief. How on earth does the ORR think that the RVR is going to come to agreement with two farmers who are so opposed to the rebuild that they are point blank refusing to sell their land? One farmer's main concern was that it would make parcels of land inaccessible, and not profitable to farm. Tell him that the line is returning, without a User Worked Crossing, then try sitting down with him to come to a deal.... Yeah, good luck with that one....

 

I believe one of the farmers concerned "kicked the bucket" a few months ago, though the farm has stayed in the family, don't know how the land lies with this.
Hey a little quip there, how the land lies/land under dispute, get it, a get it, no ah please yourselves.

 

Yes one owner has died, but one relative is very opposed to the railway and I doubt will compromise, but then, she is only one relative, I think she does not own the land fully her self, she I believe is the daughter of the now land owner and possibly there may be others who now have claim to the estate .

 

I was surprised by these bits in the report. KESR has user worked crossings and this does not currently seem to be a problem. I wonder whether ORR's comments are based on experiences on the main line. The maps submitted by RVR for the planning application showed proposed Occupation Crossings but as I understand it these were what RVR thought were appropriate since there was limited dialogue with the landowners.

 

I was also mystified by this. The mention of cattle creeps had me wondering if the ORR has studied the revised plans, as the reinstated embankment across the Hoad's land would be no higher than about 1m. Anything dug out for headroom would flood, but more to the point, the land is arable, and the whole point of the crossings would be for agricultural machinery.
Anyway, this will certainly be gone into in far greater detail at the enquiry.

 

When the embankment was removed, that would have removed any drainage channels also, So I'm imagining that there would need to be improved drainage also built in to the new embankment , would this be required anyway as part of any enhanced flooding risk plan to protect the land from future flooding?

 

Yes. The proposed new embankment incorporates a large number of medium diameter drainage culvert pipes, which would effectively make it porous, and coincidentally provide cross-track wildlife corridors.

 

This shows the "fun" that one heritage railway has with its open level crossing on the main road out of Dereham in Norfolk. Interesting that one of the vehicles jumping the lights is a farm tractor......!

 

The ORR seem to be trying to use industry solutions to what is an leisure railway, user operated crossings is the norm, and Its in everyone's best interest to at least be co- operative on them, ie closing them after use, its going to need a degree of being civil on both sides. As long as no one does something stupid like parks a trailer across a crossing with a no RVR banner on it, I don't think a professional farming family would , but an eco warrior might as a last futile stance even when they have lost and the railway has re opened.

 

I'm not really surprised-bearing in mind that most drivers see an amber light as a bit of a warning (see also: amber traffic lights), it was only around 3 seconds between the red lights flashing and 60009 appearing at the crossing. I think an adjustment of the timings may be in order.
And for the record, I'm not justifying the drivers, just being realistic in how an accident could be avoided.

Keith

 

This crossing is actually being upgraded and resurfaced in the next few months so hopefully that should help minimise any future close calls.

 

Not ORR's problem as a regulator, and given both the level of abuse on UWCs on the national network, and the issues they cause when out of sight of the signallers, perhaps not surprising that they are taking a one size fits all process.

 

Away from crossing-related matters, and some may already have heard on the grapevine, but this was recently acquired by the RVR, ex-Hither Green:

Large enough to turn carriages, so very useful.
Question is, where will it fit?
(Photo from RVR blog)